PDA

View Full Version : Way too much AJ way too little Foster.



Ragnar
05-15-2005, 05:37 PM
I dont know that it would have been any different but AJ has played WAY too much and Jeff has played way too little.

Aw Heck
05-15-2005, 05:43 PM
You can credit Jamaal Tinsley's dumb fouls as the reason AJ is playing too much. And I don't remember Foster doing too much while he was in. So I don't think those are the reasons. The team's horrible shooting (Jermaine in particular) and the fact that the referees were a little more friendly to the Pistons are the cause for the team doing poorly.

And have the Pacers EVER won a game on ABC? I can't think of any.

Hicks
05-15-2005, 05:48 PM
Rick switched Jeff with James because we were desperate for offense. Now that it obviously hasn't worked, I hope he realized that while James can shoot, Jeff gets you more shots, and for this team, that's much more important.

McKeyFan
05-15-2005, 05:49 PM
Yep. Ben is killing us. Foster should be in there.

FiestyFosterFanatic
05-15-2005, 05:49 PM
I was wondering why Foster hasn't been playing much this game. Seems like he played about 4 minutes in the 1st half, and 0 in the 2nd half.

able
05-15-2005, 05:50 PM
He can put James in, but if he doesn't call plays for him then the result is always worse then when Jeff is in.
If so may of your players are out of synch, it may be time to look at the coaching job done.

McKeyFan
05-15-2005, 06:10 PM
JJ should have come in for JO. JO was cold. Give someone else a shot.

Catchup roster:

Tins
Reggie
Jax
JJ
Foster

Ragnar
05-15-2005, 06:20 PM
Aw Heck you make a good point. I cant remember the last time we won a Sunday afternoon game. I dont know why we always play like crap in afternoon game but we do. If we make this a 7 game series we would have to play game 7 on a Sunday so that sucks.

DisplacedKnick
05-15-2005, 06:21 PM
Well, JJ had a couple of looks at 3's he passed up. I imagine Rick told them to cut back on the 3's but for him I'd have waited until he missed at least one.

I thought Foster should have played more myself - probably wouldn't have won the game for you (you lost it on TO's and not being aggressive enough on offense) but he sure would have cut down on their offensive boards.

McKeyFan
05-15-2005, 06:40 PM
In the press conference, Rick just said he had to sit Foster because they were playiing from behind. But weren't they behind most of game 2 when Jeff had his 20 boards and 14 or so points? Did he not play a big factor in that game when we were behind?

Does anybody have the ability to look at stats to confirm my questions?

DisplacedKnick
05-15-2005, 06:45 PM
Someday it'd be nice to look at teams that made comeback wins - hire some sports researcher to look at film of like 500 games and answer this question:

Do most teams come back by improving their offensive efficiency or by reducing the other team's offensive efficiency?

My guess is it'd be the 2nd. At least it always seemed like the stops are a bigger factor than the makes. Obviously you do things different for a single possession but I'm not convinced that going for offense when you're behind (at least until hail mary time - down, say, 10 with 2 minutes left) is the best strategy.

zag
05-15-2005, 06:53 PM
I'll say one thing about the Pistons. They do a great job of killing momentum with timeouts. The Pacers went on several runs to cut the lead, and right after the timeouts they built the leads right back up.

The one time where we cut the lead to 6, they came right back out and made adjustments and got the lead back up to 15. And after that happened we really loooked like we had nothing left. It took everything out of us.

I would agree that Foster didn't play as much as he needed to tonight. However, JJ did a great job on the boards too. He's not a Jeff Foster caliber rebounder, but he pulled in a good share of tough rebounds tonight, especially for his size.

The Pacers just couldn't get stops when we needed to and that enabled the Pistons to build up their lead again. And horrible shooting by pretty much everyone did not help either.

kerosene
05-15-2005, 06:55 PM
I'd tend to go with the idea that stops are more important when trying to come back from behind but I understand why Rick did it, the offense was anemic today.

DisplacedKnick
05-15-2005, 07:00 PM
I'd tend to go with the idea that stops are more important when trying to come back from behind but I understand why Rick did it, the offense was anemic today.

The problem was, the offense sucked much more because of how they ran it than who was in the game.

I'll chalk this up to Tinsley still getting his game back - he made a lot of passes that weren't there. If I thought that would stay the same the rest of the series I wouldn't even bother watching.

kerosene
05-15-2005, 07:06 PM
You're right, it didn't seem to work out in any case. When JJ went in the grabbed a few quick rebounds and nothing was done to shrink the gap despite the "offensive" player being inserted for the "defensive" player that was telling right then. Everyone but Jackson looked like they were waiting for someone else to come along and bail them out.

McKeyFan
05-15-2005, 07:18 PM
I'm a big JJ fan, but I don't think he should replace Foster--except if he's scoring a lot, which he is capable of at times. But today he wasn't, and wasn't even looking to do so. So it's a strategic error IMO.

JJ did get several nice defensive rebounds. However, those are the ones we are supposed to get. AND does anybody really think that Jeff would gotten less defensive rebounds had he been in? Doubtful. What we do know is that Jeff would have gotten a couple, maybe several offensive rebounds.

You know, you're typical Foster tip-back is just a huge, huge play. It elimates maybe 40 seconds of lost clock that it would take if the defense gets the rebound instead of Jeff gettign the offensive board, going back, the Pacers working like mad for the stop, and then coming back and executing good offense to MAYBE get the score. Those tipins are big stuff.

DisplacedKnick
05-15-2005, 07:28 PM
You know, you're typical Foster tip-back is just a huge, huge play. It elimates maybe 40 seconds of lost clock that it would take if the defense gets the rebound instead of Jeff gettign the offensive board, going back, the Pacers working like mad for the stop, and then coming back and executing good offense to MAYBE get the score. Those tipins are big stuff.

That and they really energize both the crowd and the team.

A-Train
05-16-2005, 07:19 AM
12 minutes for Foster, for whatever reason Carlisle chooses to give, is ridiculous. Foster has been energizing this team the last two games..... and he plays 12 minutes in Game 4??????????

Re-god****-diculous.

Pig Nash
05-16-2005, 08:15 AM
Hey, it wasn't a prime number game, that's why we lost.

Mushmouth
05-16-2005, 12:32 PM
Someone remind me why Foster lost his starting job?

I've always been one to believe you don't lose your job due to injury. Especially when you clearly outplay the guy starting in front of you. 12 Minutes for Foster is criminal.